Posted
by
kdawson
on Wednesday November 07, 2007 @05:06AM
from the speech-in-a-deep-freeze dept.

penguin_dance writes "A Texas School District is threatening to sue a parent over what it terms 'libelous material' or other 'legally offensive' postings on her web site and are demanding their removal. Web site owner Sandra Tetley says they're just opinions. The legal firm sending the demand cited 16 items, half posted by Tetley, the rest by anonymous commentators to her blog. The alleged libelous postings 'accuse Superintendent Lynne Cleveland, trustees and administrators of lying, manipulation, falsifying budget numbers, using their positions for "personal gain," violating the Open Meetings Act and spying on employees, among other things.' The problem for the district is that previous courts have ruled that governments can't sue for libel. So now, in a follow-up story, the lawyers say the firm 'would file a suit on behalf of administrators in their official capacities and individual board members. The suit, however, would be funded from the district's budget.' So far, Tetley hasn't backed down, although she said she'll 'consult with her attorneys before deciding what, if anything, to delete.'"

Sorry to comment-jack, but I think you guys here on Slashdot will be interested in this, it's the first chance I've really had to discuss it, and it's extremely relevant to this thread.

Sorry in advance that it's poorly written, my brains frazzled from studying and I don't have time to plan it properly.

About 6 weeks ago I was 'removed' from my school (in Victoria, Australia) for writing a blog. I'm eighteen, doing my VCE (Year 12) and two days after writing it my Mum was called and asked to bring me in (and asked to pull me out of work specifically for it.. she didn't, so they waited at the school until seven so that they could do it that night).

The blog in question was satirical, and made fun of numerous things about the school (spending so much on toilets when they're still so crap, our health teachers poor understanding of some contraception methods, the fact we put had 'annual festivities' to impress visitors from Japan, my new VET Multimedia teachers, a picture of a condom found on the floor in the Year 7-9 toilets (12 to 15)). I named some names (of the teachers, and one student who made a webpage which received an award despite coming straight out of 1995). I realise in retrospect I did a lot of things wrong, but hear me out.

I was told, in the 'meeting', that I was not to come back to school. Clear my locker out and leave. She (the principal) would 'speak to the region' and I'd probably get transferred. I had 4 weeks to go, then exams. Excluding holidays. In the first week, nothing was done, we waited to find out what was happening (heard very little). Then 2 weeks of holidays (which of course no-one works), then the next week we were told I'd be sitting my SACs at my house (with teacher supervision) and doing my exams at another school 30 km away. In the meeting, I'd offered EVERYTHING to keep myself there. I apologised, my Mum tried to get her to address the more pressing concerns in the blog (neither of my VET Multimedia teachers were qualified to teach the course), but she ignored this. I was told to take the blog down or they'd speak to their legal team (apparently some parts were defammatory).

In the end, I was able to contact my teachers - through her.. A very slow process. Now, it's exam time. I've done alright so far, but my ENTER score is seriously going to suffer from the fact I missed out on the most crucial part of the year. Does the school care? No. The Department of Education said that her actions were completely reasonable.. This is despite the fact she was also mentioned in said blog, as the handicap parking spot in the car park was removed and, ala, a spot for her showed up:).

So, this isn't the first case. Oh, and wish me luck with my exam tomorrow..

If you want to ask questions, just reply here and I'll answer them. Don't waste your time flaming me, I realise in retrospect to watch what you say online, but come on.. it was meant for a cheap laugh, and my serious attempts to address the issues were ignored. It was a creative outlet for me and it's seriously affected my future.. alas, I have no recourse it'd seem. Also, anyone who commented on the blog was banned from all Year 12 events - Muck up day, valedictory (graudation) dinner, etc.

Note: I should point out.. I'm aware Australia doesn't have freedom of speech laws. Also, I was a grade A student (for most things), and my final mark will still go on my previous schools records.. so really, they haven't lost out at all.Oh, and one of the unqualified multimedia teachers ended up not being at school the next day - she (unsurprisingly) had a Professional Development day. Apparently they were completing their Multimedia certificate to be qualified to teach, but weren't legally allowed to yet.

I don't know much about Australian law, but I suspect that if the local press is not somehow denied access to the site, merely threatening to sue them anyway even if you don't have a case will likely garner you enough press time to embarrass them a lot more than the website.

They may allow you back in or to retake the test in simple self defense. You will likely be seeing some hardball. The accusations on your site can be enough to keep an elected official out of office or get a superintendent fired. Again consult the lawyer first, but pointing out that it will get into the local news may cause a really amazing effect.

Also don't assume that t6hey are necessarily telling you the truth about what is defamatory and what is not. A lot of that stuff is opinion and not thier opinion to boot.

They may allow you back in or to retake the test in simple self defense. You will likely be seeing some hardball. The accusations on your site can be enough to keep an elected official out of office or get a superintendent fired. Again consult the lawyer first, but pointing out that it will get into the local news may cause a really amazing effect.

They're not letting me back in, school is already over. The exams are already in progress.. it all happened at the worst possible time. Also, there was libel in

Also, there was libel in one portion - I relayed on the fact several people call one of the teachers a pedophile (In the opinion of many people, he's the creepy teacher.. A lot of my female friends have told me tales of him 'perving' on them on free dress days).

No-one "perving" on 16/17/18 year old girls is a paedophile. Creepy, maybe - but even that's dependent on how "hot" said girls think he is.

No-one "perving" on 16/17/18 year old girls is a paedophile. Creepy, maybe - but even that's dependent on how "hot" said girls think he is.

Try the age range of 12 to 15 (Secondary School, Year 7 to 9, in Australia). A family-friend in Year 9 told her Mum that they don't like it when he's around them (he always volunteers to do things like Year 7/8 Swimming Sports), and when Mum spoke to her Mum and told her the name of the person I mentioned, she was like "Oh my, that's the name of the teacher my daughter

That's a career killing comment, no wonder they freaked out. If the evidence is stacking up they probably should be fired but it's still not a good idea to post something like this on the internet since he could be assaulted. If he hasn't done anything it would be solely your fault. Besides, he could just be creepy and his actions be misinterpreted. Unless you have actual proof it's irresponsible to say things like that.Without checking your actual post I can't know what you said but from the snippets you'v

I am unfamiliar with the term Pederast (this is, in fact, the first time I have heard it), and hence looked it up on wikipedia, and it doesn't seem to mean what you think it does. From the first paragraph of the article:
"Pederasty or paederasty (literally 'boy-love', see Etymology below) refers to an intimate or erotic relationship between an adolescent boy and an adult male outside his immediate family. It has found expression from earliest times through a variety of customs and practices within differen

They may allow you back in or to retake the test in simple self defense. You will likely be seeing some hardball. The accusations on your site can be enough to keep an elected official out of office or get a superintendent fired. Again consult the lawyer first, but pointing out that it will get into the local news may cause a really amazing effect.

We're talking about a bad website written by an angry teenager. The only reason this would have an effect on any rational adult's vote is that the whole issue po

You have to understand that the actions of your school against your are the result of their fear of negative publicity. Use this to your advantage. It looks like some of your criticism was legitimate. Contact your local newspaper and tell them about the issues you have. You have a right to proper education and if you are being denied that right, you have the right to tell people about the main reasons you are not getting the education you deserve.

In my opinion, there is a fine line between opinion and libel. For example, if you have "in my opinion" in what you're saying, then that makes it an opinion, in my opinion. However, I may be wrong, but I don't feel wrong, in my opinion.

If what you mentioned contained libel, then this probably won't work. But in my opinion, if it weren't for the libel, I would personally consider suing. All you need is to document the financial loss you incurred when they harassed you, assuming it is considered harassment, which I won't say whether or not they did.

As a few other commenters have pointed out - you have admitted your mistake, offered to make amends and still been ignored. The handling of the situation has been appalling.As for what you said - without reading it (and the exact wording and context) I can't offer any opinion on whether it was a legal but unsavoury commentary on the school and its teachers or if it did cross the line into libel. But it really would be worth getting a lawyer to address things. This may not be cheap but - you are an A student

If you are going to live in a non-free lawyer-infested country, you need to host your blog anonymously in a far removed country somewhere else.

FYI... I have had to deal with school boards and school administrators in various circumstances, several times. I have observed a nature that fits every one of them I have dealt with, and seems to fit every one that makes it to the news. That nature is that the people who run them are people that wanted to be politicians because they enjoyed being in positions of

I almost had a problem like that when I was in high school. Now this was many years ago, to many that I don't want to go into. The school news paper was nothing but a mouth piece for the jocks and victorian society, i.e. people with all the money. It was not even worth wiping your ass with that rag.

My friends and I being nerds had access to our own computers, C-64, a damn good printer, and a copy machine. We did what any pissed off geeks would do, we started our own underground newspaper. But we whe

I'd suggest writing a letter to your local representative and to the local and state newspapers. Write, write, write. Explain your situation, explain how you were treated.

Thanks for the advice:). I was considering doing this, had to wait until I was certain I'd be allowed to sit exams first (I believe they could've expelled me entirely, and because 'mirrors' of the blog kept popping up [People had printed it out to show their parents], this was sort

This happened at my school when I was in Year 8. A new teacher came and was told to teach Art, Science and Tech for our class.. despite the only class he had studied (I believe) was Art, possibly Science. It was a few years before he got to teach classes he'd actually expected, and he ended up quitting and getting a job in the 'real world' (I quoted him in the blog, as I'd emailed him about the situation - his response was: "It's a shame about the multim

Second, from just what's written in the summary, it's a pretty clear case of someone using their blog to accuse school officials of wrongdoing. It doesn't sound at all like "opinions". It sounds like accusations and innuendo. I'm not sure how responsible this person is for the comments, but the articles themselves are pretty libelous if untrue.

Did Slashdot change to a system where submitters choose what stories go on the front page? I thought that's what the editors did. I thought it was their job to do some quality control on what got posted (even though they have long neglected that duty).

Seriously. Slashdot does not have, nor has it ever had, Editors. Slashdot has copyists which it calls 'Editors' much to the dismay of a certain segment of its readership. You can check the FAQ out (I haven't read it in years) and it basically says that they do not want to be editors. This is something they want the Slashdot participants to do. I find it annoying as hell but in their defense there are several posts with links claiming to be the blog in question.

Actually from what I've read it's a case of less than astutue public officals being repeatedly embarassed for wasting and squandering public funds and failing to take advantage or having knowlege of federal grant money. take a look at the Blog [gisdwatch.com] and see if you agree. would you think this is libelous?

I wonder what the school Principals and teachers think about how much money they are spending to silence us. Especially when they promised each teacher a $250 stipend for their classroom and then took the amounts

The law rarely deals in absolutes. The shotgun approach where you fire off dozens of accusations in the hope that at least some of them will stick suggests a malicious or reckless disregard for the truth.

Basically, when someone sues just to shut you up/intimidate you, KNOWING they are going to lose if it goes to court. The school district using deep pockets to prevent her from publishing a blocg about a public entity (protected speach) basically would fall under this.

Many states now have anti-SLAPP laws - allows the person being sued to counter sue

If the poster can prove that any factual statements he made, are true, then he has a strong defense.

But, at what cost? Any well financed institution can easily run your legal expenses into the the tens of thousands - and very possibly more.

Then there is the issue of your time, if you have a full-time job, or if you are full time student, or parent; you just may not the time to spend the next few years in the court room. Big institutions know this.

Until a week ago I thought that truth was an absolute defence to libel. Not always so. Although the law differs by jurisdiction, what you say may have to be in the public interest. If a politician sleeps around with married people and then tries to outlaw adultery, that's in the public interest to report; if your neighbour sleeps around with married people, that's not in the public interest (unless the married person or that person's spouse is a public figure). People are entitled to their privacy, and if the public would not care about Joe Blow and you defame his character, you're going to get in trouble.

Also, on the jurisdictional issue, this site [cippic.ca] lists a few places where truth is not an absolute defence (including "some US states"). And you should note that if you publish something online, then since people can read it in jurisdictions where truth is not an absolute defence, you may be able to be sued in those jurisdictions, even if you and the person you're talking about have never been to that jurisdiction. And lastly, the burden of truth (not just belief in truth of the statements, but actual truth) is on the person making the statements.

Arguably, school officials are public figures.The jurisdictional issue is a real problem. Unchecked, it amounts to whoever has the deepest pockets. Launch lawsuits in as many jurisdictions as possible and then sit back and watch your target get buried in paper and ink. The Scientologists used jurisdiction to bring the DoJ to its knees, which is telling giving the vast resources of the US government.

This is what happens when 2 out of the 3 branches of your government are composed entirely of lawyers and

Given that Harvard MBAs are what they hand out to rich daddies children to get their big bucks and that the course content (like pretty much every MBAs) amounts to 'get to know your classmates, their daddies are rich and can get you good jobs / contracts because you are friends with their son', I'd suggest that the above statement lists George Bush's highest qualification.

I don't have to prove I didn't but I still have a burden of proof.In a libel action, the plaintiff must prove three elements of the tort of libel:

The statement has been made to a third party.

The statement referred to the plaintiff. (This does not mean that the statement has to refer expressly to the plaintiff. A statement can be actionable if it is reasonably capable of referring to the plaintiff).

The statement must be defamatory, which means that it must be a false statement to the

Just because its a blog doesnt it make any less real than posting it as leaflets on lampposts.If the accusations are true, than they will lose.If they arent, they have every right to defend themselves against this libel.

That's not entirely true. There's a defence to libel called "honest opinion", which basically means that the statements made are clearly intended to be interpreted as opinion rather than absolute statements of fact. This does, in fact, mean that blogs (a medium that is commonly used for di

To make your analogy accurate, you would have to include the fact that people came along afterwards and wrote additional things on the leaflets she put on lampposts, and they are suing her for those statements as well.

I don't know the details of this story, whether there's any merit in the school's arguments or not, because I haven't read the original blog (and even if I did, I'd be reading a one-sided biased view), but they are being seen to have gone in heavy-handed with the lawyers, and the result is that a small local dispute has been syndicated in Slashdot, and probably plenty of places elsewhere.
Effectively by calling in the lawyers, they've turned a small amount of bad publicity into a very large amount of much worse publicity. This is something I've noticed happening a lot lately (most obviously with the RIAA etc).
So regardless of the merits of the case, the lesson seems to be if you're considering calling the lawyers, you'd be wise to try less drastic steps first to get your point across. And if you're on the receiving end of a nasty letter from the lawyers, blog about it in a way that focuses on how it affects your rights, and make sure Slashdot gets to hear it.

These are elected officials we are talking about. School board members are chosen by election. The rules for libel are far different for public figures than for private individuals. This might get interesting. The defendent's speech is political in nature so we're talking First Amendment issues here.

does an elected official that most people don't
even know count as a "public figure"?

In most places, these people have more power than the rest of
local government combined. They usually control over
two-thirds of the town/city budget, they have the power to
make the life of anyone with children a living hell, and they
usually have so little oversight as to make them nearly
bulletproof in a scandal.

Even if you don't have kids, you damned well better have an
interest in what goes on with your local school board (unless
you don't care how rapidly your excise and property
taxes go up).

And to be even more fair, the money has to come from somewhere. At least with property taxes I have *some* control of the quality of my children's schools (as long as I have a nice income and live in a nice house, that is). As is usually the case, people are crying for services, but don't want to pay taxes. You can't have both. Take away the taxes and bye-bye free schools.

I think it's at least odd if not sad or offensive that the school budgets will be used to prosecute this even if school districts can't directly sue anyone. The fact that they are doing this makes me suspicious of their arguments. Not that it really surprises me, educators and school administrators sometimes are known to go on goofy power trips, but knowing nothing about this case, I should try to be fair about it. It's also possible that the parent just has some kind of axe to grind because of some perc

I think it's at least odd if not sad or offensive that the school budgets will be used to prosecute this even if school districts can't directly sue anyone.

If (as described) they are suing as individuals in order to do an end-run around that, then tapping the school budget to fund the lawsuit is no different from tapping the school budget to fund a weekend in Aruba.

I also find it very interesting that it appears that school funds would be used to what utimately sounds like funding private lawsuits. Isn't that one of the misues of funds that the blogger is talking about?

I like the observation that court precedent says you can't be sued for libeling the government, so instead they decide they're going to sue on behalf of the individuals in their official capacities (because the alleged libel wasn't about them in their private life, it was about their performance in their official capacities).Their "official capacities" are being members of the government. So what good is the precedent if it only protects you from suit for libeling the government, if they can just sue on be

after I RTFA i didn't see where they mentioned the actual content in dispute. Could someone point out where this libel actually is on the site? I would like to read what GSID is actually trying to remove before I form an opinion on the matter.

Those aren't serious allegations. These are run of the mill things. Who doesn't fudge budgets? Who doesn't use their position to advance themselves or their relatives (ie., nepotism)? Who doesn't spy on their employees (ie., read employee email or go hunting for personal webpages)? I'm not sure what the Open Meeting Act is, but if it's anything like the Freedom of Information Act, who follows that to the letter?The thing is, unless these administrators are angels (and they're probably human, not angel), the

Those aren't serious allegations. These are run of the mill things. Who doesn't fudge budgets?

Well, while short-term fudging is common (due to things like payments getting delayed, etc.) long-term fudging is serious and indicates that there's probably serious trouble hidden. Uncovering this sort of thing is exactly what auditors are supposed to do.

Who doesn't use their position to advance themselves or their relatives (ie., nepotism)?

Nepotism is a serious allegation. If the relative is any good, they can get their position without it, and who would want to hire someone who isn't good? (Answer: someone not fit for the job)

Who doesn't spy on their employees (ie., read employee email or go hunting for personal webpages)?

Those two things are different. Employee email is generally sent with the expectation of some degree of privacy, but personal webpages are voluntary publication to anyone who cares to read. Looking for public info isn't spying, looking for confidential info is. OK?

The thing is, unless these administrators are angels (and they're probably human, not angel), the allegations are probably true. These are things people of average moral character do on a normal basis. People of good moral character usually don't do this, but then again, I doubt they'd make it into a management position. Management usually goes to 'yes' people, not people with strong morals.

Sounds like you've had to suffer from terrible management somewhere along the line. I really feel for you.

I have seen this too many times in too many places. People in power or in fame somehow believe they have an entitlement above others... actually, I have seen that in people without power and fame as well.I would love to see this one go to court. I would love to see these anti-free-speech government employees ousted from their elected, self-serving positions.

When I read through the blogs, there are definitely some serious issues that need to be addressed. Unfortunately, there aren't enough state and feder

This dispute is hardly surprising if you know something about the background issues. For anyone interested, here's a link to a 20/20 report called "Stupid in America" [youtube.com]; a little over 40 minutes long, but very informative. After watching the report, it seems to me teacher's unions are mostly to blame; they don't take shit from anyone and resist making any changes at all to the system. All they ever seem to want is more money, even when it's clear to everyone else that private schools, and schools in other cou

I know this Australia we are talking about and not the US, but I thought most countries don't see blogs as journalism, and in the states, they haven't allowed blogs to be protected the same way journalism is (protecting sources and such). If blogs aren't journalism, then why are blogs considered libel?

This is just one parent expressing their opinion, and God help us if you can be sued simply for expressing your opinion.

This is why you need an independent judiciary. A judge should look at the kind of legal flim-flammery the district is attempting and smack them down hard for abuse of process. Of course this is Texas, so who knows what will happen.

Sometimes, you can get away with breaking the spirit of the law on a technicality. Sometimes. But when you can, it is because in our system, the entity whose illegal actions are the highest priority to restrain is presumptively the government. It is better for a citizen to get off on a technicality than for the government to claim an iota more power over his life than it is strictly allowed to. But this doesn't go the other way. The government can't use a technicality to claim more power of the citizens' lives than it actually has.

This is why "running government like a business" doesn't work. The government has duties that a business does not, and things that individuals can sometimes get away with the government can't, or at least shouldn't. One of the duties the government has is to respect the right of individuals to criticize it.

Even individuals aren't allowed to evade their legal duties by legal fictions. You have a legal duty to pay taxes. You can shelter income by taking advantage of quirks in the tax code, but you cannot shelter it by creating ficticious transaction that create the appearance of losses. That's fraud.

What the school committee is doing here is fraud. It is managing this lawsuit and even paying for it, under the fraudulent pretenses that it is not a government action. It makes accusation of fraud against the officials involved all the more credible. It would be one thing (still dubious) if they took legal action as individuals; perhaps it would be simply misguided. But they're playing a shell game here, using their official powers but hiding them under an unconvincing cloak.

I live in Houston but my brother lives in Sante Fe, TX which is in Galveston county. I can attest to the type of tactics that are used by many on the school board as well as the local law enforcement. I do not know the parties in question but after reading the blog I can believe most of the accusations happening without much arm twisting. Is there proof? Probably but that proof is in the hands of the very people it would condemn. Is that a ShredCo truck i see rounding the corner? My brother spent 3 years de

It is OK to be offensive. That's right. Racial slurs, ethnic slurs and religious slurs are all better than censorship. Do society a favor. Act incensitive. Even if you think you can mild it down, don't. People have gotten too used to the idea that their right not to be offended stand in the way of other people's rights to tell the truth. Time to give the "niceness lobby" a verbal slap in the face. Because so far they have set the world's greatest democracy on a way to becoming a tyranny. Have you

I used to run a regularly updated blog that covered, among other things, a situation in the town I live in. Basically, a group of local politicians (or their cronies) hijacked the offices they were voted out of by filling the open spots of mayor and city council that were conveniently vacated by the people that won the election. Those people who had been elected (not the ones who were voted out and later appointed) left under a series of very suspicious circumstances, leaving the impression that they were bullied out of office. The ones that came back served local business interests. The locals, fed up with what was going on, decided that the best way out was to dissolve the city and be annexed into the city next door. Upon following the state law, this group of locals was successful in their efforts and were supposed to have a vote on the annexation. The town "leaders" didn't want that to happen, so they fought the election in courts-- which they lost. So they racked up a large amount of debt for the town, the town that agreed to annex pulled out because they didn't want the debt, and our town never saw an election.

The local media picked up very little of the story, so I called the town out on its actions on my blog. It got quite a bit of attention from the locals.

The town officials didn't dare come after me, but one of the local business leaders (and a friend of the council and mayor) did. He showed up on my doorstep, came inside my home, and raised his voice in front of my toddler daughter and paid no attention to the fact that he was scaring the crap out of her. While I used no names or businesses or people, and there was more that one person who could have fit the description, the business owner told me that he had the right to sue me. I spoke with no less than four lawyers who told me that he was delusional. The owner's rationale was this: If I wrote a convincing blog that affected the outcome of a local election, the town would be absorbed into another town that has building codes and zoning laws, and he'd have to spend money to get his buildings up to code. So he would sue me for the money he "lost". During the meeting, he fiddled with his pocket and asked me questions like, "What was your intent in publishing this?" Yes, I was being recorded, and I suspect he was fishing for something because someone told him he had nothing.

Nevertheless, he said that I'd incorrectly stated someone else's opinion. (This person was also never named.) While I'd talked to the person previously and published their correct opinion, that opinion changed when I spoke to them afterward-- leading me to believe that he'd had a similar visit. I had no way to back up my claims, so I went ahead and corrected the statement with an editor's note. I was also told that I'd incorrectly identified the mayor as being the owner of a particular business, but there were no defaming statements made, so it was no big deal. I've since been told that the mayor IS the owner, so I just took the sentence out altogether to avoid confusion. They even tried to say that I'd misquoted the mayor, but the quote I'd published was a quote from the local newspaper and was noted as such. Not to mention, the reporter had a taped recording of what the mayor said, regardless as to what he meant to say.

My little meeting actually DID change the way I wrote, and it made me an even bigger thorn in their side. Since they were going to play hardball, I started collecting paperwork to back up every single thing I wrote, and they could no longer tell people I was lying. I even published pictures of the "park" they claimed to have on their publicity website and turned some heads, and they had to change the wording to say that they were going to have a park in the future. (I got a couple of phone calls from state legislators about that one.) When they passed a city ordinance to discourage a peaceful demonstration at a town event, I published the ordinance and pointed out in the wording that they could still prot

This happened recently, where the anonymous blogger "orthomom" got sued by a School Board member for saying nasty things about her. The suit was thrown out of court. Some details are available here [blogspot.com].

They know that previous rulings prevent the district from suing so they are doing a run around. It is my belief that if this actually makes it to court and the district loses then the money MUST be repaid by everyone on the board that brought the suit.

Frankly, posting anything about government officials, other than death threats or personal information, should not be discouraged. If the public cannot voice their disagreements with local officials then we are no longer free. The fact is, the public officials don't have to like what is posted about them, thats their choice. It is not their choice to silence people who post such.

while that sites forum is a pain to read it does appear that most of the people complaining are doing so with good maturity. The problem for the district is that people are connecting the dots, adding up the numbers, and then questioning it.

That the district would use a back door method to skirt a previous court ruling about suing only lends more credit to those posting on the blog.

Whats next? Suing people who start recall drives? Perhaps the members of the blog should try that next.

I wouldn't necessarily say that defending yourself against libel qualifies as "personal gain". What did you gain by defending yourself? Really all you did was stop a loss of dignity, not gain any dignity; and if that dignity is professionally valuable, then it is reasonable that the employer might contribute to the defense.

The other problem that I see with this is that the way they are going about it only serves to reinforce what the defendent was saying in the first place. I would think that as an elected official the simplest way to deal with something like this is to completely ignore it and if a question is posed directly then give a direct answer. Should someone reference the site a simple "Everyone is entitled to an opinion." would suffice for 99% of people.

Frankly, posting anything about government officials, other than death threats or personal information, should not be discouraged. If the public cannot voice their disagreements with local officials then we are no longer free. The fact is, the public officials don't have to like what is posted about them, thats their choice. It is not their choice to silence people who post such.

So you had no problem with GW Bush spreading rumors of John McCain's illegitimate black child?

But in truth these are torts against those particular individuals, not against the government proper. If they then used positions of authority to appropriate tax funds to assist their suit, that would be inappropriate, no? I think it a reasonable rule that the government cannot sue for libel/slander. Individual officers may do so on their own time as per any individual injury, knowing of course that the bar is raised because they are such public officials and thus natural targets of opinion and speculatio

So you had no problem with GW Bush spreading rumors of John McCain's illegitimate black child?

So you won't mind if I think your accusation that GW Bush spread those rumors about John McCain is libelous?

Just saying....

You can't have it both ways. The point is, you have a lot more leeway when commenting on a public figure (in the US) than you do Joe Blow down the street. Whether they're elected or public because of the nature of their job (such as a professional football player, hollywood star or even

"So you had no problem with GW Bush spreading rumors of John McCain's illegitimate black child?What about that Swift Boat Veterans for Truth garbage? "

I may not like what they are saying. But I believe they have the right to say it. The Washington State Supreme Court recently struck down a law that supports your position. We'll see what the US Supreme Court says if they hear the case.

The difference is that of the four statements you list, two wouldn't be considered statements of fact (no sane court would rule that saying Bush isn't biologically human is meant to be a real statement of fact), one isn't a specific statement ("He lied" is pretty vague), and the other is debatable enough and somewhat vague (you can't really prove or disprove someone's motivations for taking an action). While agree that the school administrators don't really have a case for "lying" and "manipulating" being l